Tom Fowler , Edward Blandford , David Chapman , Matthias E. Futschik , Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini , Sarah Tunkel , Carolyn Lewis , Alasdair Fellows , Ellie Sheppard , Leanne McCabe , Peter Marks , Paul E. Klapper , Andrew Dodgson , Malur Sudhanva , Mike Kidd , Andy Vail , Susan Hopkins , Tim Peto
{"title":"对 PCR 检测中用于检测 Omicron 变异的拭抹部位进行比较评估","authors":"Tom Fowler , Edward Blandford , David Chapman , Matthias E. Futschik , Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini , Sarah Tunkel , Carolyn Lewis , Alasdair Fellows , Ellie Sheppard , Leanne McCabe , Peter Marks , Paul E. Klapper , Andrew Dodgson , Malur Sudhanva , Mike Kidd , Andy Vail , Susan Hopkins , Tim Peto","doi":"10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2024.116577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns about the best sampling sites for PCR testing, with early indications suggesting throat swab samples were better than nasal swab samples. Our study evaluated the sensitivity of detecting SARS-CoV-2 across different swabbing sites.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Participants undergoing testing at NHS Test and Trace sites in England provided self-collected samples using nose only, throat only, and combined nose and throat swabs, which were analysed by realtime PCR.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 815 participants, combined swabs had higher viral concentrations than nose only or throat only swabs. Sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 by PCR was 91 % for nose only and 97 % for throat only, relative to the combined approach. VC remained stable in nose swabs but declined in throat swabs with time.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Combined nose and throat swabbing remains the most effective method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. If a single swab is used, a throat swab has a higher sensitivity than nose swabs, although VC in the throat decreases faster in later infection stages. The variations in VC over time and intra-person variation between sampling sites underscore the complexity of viral dynamics, highlighting the importance of considering both nose and throat samples for comprehensive testing.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11329,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease","volume":"111 1","pages":"Article 116577"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of swabbing sites for Omicron variant detection in PCR testing\",\"authors\":\"Tom Fowler , Edward Blandford , David Chapman , Matthias E. Futschik , Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini , Sarah Tunkel , Carolyn Lewis , Alasdair Fellows , Ellie Sheppard , Leanne McCabe , Peter Marks , Paul E. Klapper , Andrew Dodgson , Malur Sudhanva , Mike Kidd , Andy Vail , Susan Hopkins , Tim Peto\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2024.116577\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns about the best sampling sites for PCR testing, with early indications suggesting throat swab samples were better than nasal swab samples. Our study evaluated the sensitivity of detecting SARS-CoV-2 across different swabbing sites.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Participants undergoing testing at NHS Test and Trace sites in England provided self-collected samples using nose only, throat only, and combined nose and throat swabs, which were analysed by realtime PCR.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 815 participants, combined swabs had higher viral concentrations than nose only or throat only swabs. Sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 by PCR was 91 % for nose only and 97 % for throat only, relative to the combined approach. VC remained stable in nose swabs but declined in throat swabs with time.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Combined nose and throat swabbing remains the most effective method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. If a single swab is used, a throat swab has a higher sensitivity than nose swabs, although VC in the throat decreases faster in later infection stages. The variations in VC over time and intra-person variation between sampling sites underscore the complexity of viral dynamics, highlighting the importance of considering both nose and throat samples for comprehensive testing.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease\",\"volume\":\"111 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 116577\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732889324004024\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732889324004024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative evaluation of swabbing sites for Omicron variant detection in PCR testing
Purpose
The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns about the best sampling sites for PCR testing, with early indications suggesting throat swab samples were better than nasal swab samples. Our study evaluated the sensitivity of detecting SARS-CoV-2 across different swabbing sites.
Methods
Participants undergoing testing at NHS Test and Trace sites in England provided self-collected samples using nose only, throat only, and combined nose and throat swabs, which were analysed by realtime PCR.
Results
Among 815 participants, combined swabs had higher viral concentrations than nose only or throat only swabs. Sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 by PCR was 91 % for nose only and 97 % for throat only, relative to the combined approach. VC remained stable in nose swabs but declined in throat swabs with time.
Conclusions
Combined nose and throat swabbing remains the most effective method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. If a single swab is used, a throat swab has a higher sensitivity than nose swabs, although VC in the throat decreases faster in later infection stages. The variations in VC over time and intra-person variation between sampling sites underscore the complexity of viral dynamics, highlighting the importance of considering both nose and throat samples for comprehensive testing.
期刊介绍:
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease keeps you informed of the latest developments in clinical microbiology and the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases. Packed with rigorously peer-reviewed articles and studies in bacteriology, immunology, immunoserology, infectious diseases, mycology, parasitology, and virology, the journal examines new procedures, unusual cases, controversial issues, and important new literature. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease distinguished independent editorial board, consisting of experts from many medical specialties, ensures you extensive and authoritative coverage.